This response problematizes Stefan Bengtsson's (2016) defense of education for sustainable development. He argues that sustainable development and education for sustainable development are not globalizing and hegemonic discourses, as some have claimed, and uses case-study analysis of Vietnamese policy documents to support his claims. He observes contestation and dissensus within these documents, and that, for him, is at odds with his conceptions of hegemony and paradigmatic status. He also suggests that this dissensus provides openings for opposition and resistance. I argue, on the contrary, that disagreement, dissent, anomalies, and counter-hegemonic forces have always been part of hegemonic struggles and paradigmatic states--and shifts. Bengtsson and I do agree about the importance of dissensus and resistance; however, important choices remain to be made about what concepts and contexts of dissensus are most educationally valuable. For example, I show that Bengtsson's Vietnamese policy data suggests that although dissensus exists, sustainable development and education for sustainable development have had little impact in generating counter-hegemonic discourse, resistance, anomalous responses, or creative alternatives in the environmental and social policy. Based on the data, sustainable development does not seem to have much traction. I argue that a useful approach would be to focus on understandings currently absent or underrepresented in contemporary education. Particularly important are the understandings required to think differently and to become different beings. Throughout, attention has been given to developing educational experiences that arise that shift the way learners carry themselves in the world, enact their etiquette, and broaden their ontological positioning, and commensurate understandings.